The Amended Computer Crime Act and the State of Internet Freedoms in Thailand

Thailand’s National Legislative Assembly voted unanimously last week to pass an amendment to that country’s Computer Crime Act (CCA), delivering a heavy blow to digital rights in Thailand. Instead of offering citizens protection against fraud, data breaches, theft, or other true cybercrimes, the amendments only worsen the ambiguity and potential for abuse that have marred the CCA since it was first enacted in 2007.

Thailand’s current military government stepped up information controls after taking power in a military coup in 2014, with particular sensitivity to opposition or criticism of the military’s role in politics. On top of that, each of Thailand’s governments in recent decades—democratically elected or otherwise—has demonstrated increasingly strict attitudes about lèse majesté, or the Thai law against insulting the country’s monarchy. The original CCA expanded lèse majesté to the Internet. Since its passing, the law has been invoked to block online content, criminalize those who create and disseminate it, and intimidate online speakers and Internet service providers, with recent punishments of up to 30 years’ imprisonment.

Since the October death of Thailand’s long-serving king and the contentious installation of his son as successor, state censorship of critical material has spiked. In this political setting, a fortified CCA can be expected to lead to tighter monitoring and stricter censorship by the state.

The most concerning aspects of the new amendments to the CCA fall into three categories: ambiguity for users, dangerous intermediary liability, and lack of accountability.

First, under the original CCA, users risked unknowingly violating vague and constantly changing legal standards. The amendments have made this ambiguity even worse by effectively giving the government a “blank check” to press CCA charges against any dissidents. Section 14 in particular gives too much power to the state to judge the (il)legality of various digital actions, with a list of increasingly vague crimes like disseminating “obscene” data or creating “false” information that is “likely” to threaten “national security, public safety….or public infrastructure serving the national interest.”

Second, Thailand has been notoriously strict with intermediaries like webmasters and message board hosts in the past, holding them criminally responsible for any illegal speech users may bring to their service. The new CCA is consistent with that restrictive stance, but now with a twist. Under Section 15, service providers are explicitly exempted from any penalty if they can prove they complied with government takedown requests. While that may be seen as relieving the pressure on ISPs, putting the burden of proof on them will actually result in more censorship—whether intermediaries take down content at the state’s request or preemptively censor themselves and their users to avoid state scrutiny.

Finally, the amendments establish a “computer data screening committee” to monitor content that is not illegal but is found to violate “the public order or moral high ground of the people.” Section 20 specifies a committee of nine appointees that can request court orders to block or take down content. The amendments have nothing to say about how members will be selected or held publicly accountable, nor about what would constitute legal but apparently censorship-worthy information.

The original CCA was introduced in 2007 as an attempt to hold back free digital expression and maintain online the controls that the 2006 military coup hoped to impose on the rest of Thai society. These new amendments are part of the same pattern: a sacrificing of the free flow of information due to a fear of instability in the face of a political transition—in this case, the first new king in 70 years. It is precisely the wrong route for the Thai junta to take. Broader censorship in this time of tense monarchical transition prevents much-needed discussion of the monarchy, the military, and their changing places in Thai politics, and further endangers citizens’ freedom of expression. Thailand’s politicians should listen to the hundreds of thousands of netizens who have spoken out, and reform or revoke this notorious law outright.

Related Updates

Although we have been opposing Europe's misguided link tax and upload filtering proposals ever since they first surfaced in 2016, the proposals haven't been standing still during all that time. In the back and forth between a multiplicity of different Committees of the European Parliament, and two other institutions...

This week, Senators Hatch, Graham, Coons, and Whitehouse introduced a bill that diminishes the data privacy of people around the world. The Clarifying Overseas Use of Data (CLOUD) Act expands American and foreign law enforcement’s ability to target and access people’s data across international borders in two ways. First...

EFF fights for technology users. We believe that empowering and protecting users should be baked into laws, policies, and court decisions, as well as into the technologies themselves. Since our founding in 1990, we have paired this goal with the common-sense recognition that in order to properly consider these questions...

Last week EFF attended the Global Conference on Cyberspace (GCCS) in New Delhi, India, as one of a small handful of nonprofit organizations invited to participate. This was the fifth in a series of conferences sometimes called the London Process, after the first event that was held in London...

Last week the European Parliament passed a new Consumer Protection Regulation [PDF] that allows national consumer authorities to order ISPs, web hosts and domain registries to block or delete websites... all without a court order. The websites targeted are those that allegedly infringe European consumer law. But European consumer...

The global movement for open access to publicly-funded research stems from the sensible proposition that if the government has used taxpayers' money to fund research, the publication of the results of that research should be freely-licensed. Exactly the same rationale underpins the argument that software code that the government...

At EFF, we've become all too accustomed to bad news on copyright coming out of Europe, so it's refreshing to hear that Portugal has recently passed a law on copyright that helps to strike a fairer balance between users and copyright holders on DRM. The law doesn't abolish legal...

At EFF, we've become all too accustomed to bad news on copyright coming out of Europe, so it's refreshing to hear that Portugal has recently passed a law on copyright that helps to strike a fairer balance between users and copyright holders on DRM. The law doesn't abolish legal...

Increased smartphone usage and availability of wireless broadband has propelled the use of Internet based platforms and services that often compete with similar services based on older technologies. For example services like Facebook, Skype and WhatsApp that offer voice or video calls over the Internet compete with traditional SMS and...

The National Symbols Officer of Australia recently wrote to Juice Media, producers of Rap News and Honest Government Adverts, suggesting that its “use” of Australia’s coat of arms violated various Australian laws. This threat came despite the fact that Juice Media’s videos are clearly satire and no reasonable...